Christianity, Faith, and Evolution

[Paradox.79]

What you have seen are fossils and bones, not evidence of evolution. Evolution is the story woven around the facts to explain the facts. Creation is likewise a story woven around the facts, but this story is upheld in God's word.

I am only addressing this part of your long response, bones and fossils are evidence...geology, astronomy. I know for 100 percent fact that the universe is billions of years old, astronomy and the speed of light tell us this. There is evidence of the big back which is how I believe god created the universe. There is know proof in the bible...the bible is not a matter of proof it is a matter of faith. We know the andromeda galaxy is 2.5million lightyears away from us. So when we look at it in a telescope we are seeing something from 2.5 million years ago That is how long it took light to reach hear...we have found galaxy's billions of light years away from us...that means the universe is billions of years old. There is evidence of the big bang and evolution you saying there is not is not proof. A good portion of the bible has been debunked historians have done it. You see the writers of the bible especially the old testament could not imagine how far man would come, we know the earth is not flat, we know the stars are not just lights put in the sky to give light to earth at night, there planets and suns. The book contradicts itself over and over, god hates human sacrifice it its abhorrent to him and yet in judges god allowed one of his judges to sacrifice his daughter to him. I could name a thousand different area were the bible contradicts itself. I believe in god but it is not because of the bible.

 

[coffee4u]

I am only addressing this part of your long response, bones and fossils are evidence...geology, astronomy. I know for 100 percent fact that the universe is billions of years old, astronomy and the speed of light tell us this. There is evidence of the big back which is how I believe god created the universe. There is know proof in the bible...the bible is not a matter of proof it is a matter of faith. We know the andromeda galaxy is 2.5million lightyears away from us. So when we look at it in a telescope we are seeing something from 2.5 million years ago That is how long it took light to reach hear...we have found galaxy's billions of light years away from us...that means the universe is billions of years old. There is evidence of the big bang and evolution you saying there is not is not proof. A good portion of the bible has been debunked historians have done it. You see the writers of the bible especially the old testament could not imagine how far man would come, we know the earth is not flat, we know the stars are not just lights put in the sky to give light to earth at night, there planets and suns. The book contradicts itself over and over, god hates human sacrifice it its abhorrent to him and yet in judges god allowed one of his judges to sacrifice his daughter to him. I could name a thousand different area were the bible contradicts itself. I believe in god but it is not because of the bible.

Then know you are telling God that he did not really say what he said because mankind said something different.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
That is your choice, but that is what you are doing.
Debunk all you like, but if you post it here don't be surprised if we tell you otherwise.

 

[Paradox.79]

Then know you are telling God that he did not really say what he said because mankind said something different.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
That is your choice, but that is what you are doing.
Debunk all you like, but if you post it here don't be surprised if we tell you otherwise.

My point is there is no proof but the book. The math says that genesis is a myth. 10+10 will always equal 20. Nothing that book says changes facts. Christianity is matter of faith not facts. The new testament was written 50 years after the fact...I am not particularly worried about Christians, every year there are less more and more people are turning away from religion. You see education is hurting religion. We know the universe is billions of years old because of math. We know the earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, diseases are caused by germs not evil spirits, If it was evil spirits medication would not work. I think the of bible as a guidebook, part historical fact, part myth and parable. The Ark for example we have ships today that would make the ark look like a sailboat. Those boats could not hold 2 or 7 of every land animal on the planet. 4300 years ago when the flood happened and 4300 is a estimate give or take 50 years, there would have been more animals not less. Much of the bible does not hold up to historical fact check.

 

[renniks]

That's the error creationists always make.

Or not. I am a creationist and have zero problem with the so called big bang. Obviously the universe expanding isn't against any scripture.
I tend to believe old universe, young earth, but it's not that important either way.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or not. I am a creationist and have zero problem with the so called big bang. Obviously the universe expanding isn't against any scripture.
I tend to believe old universe, young earth, but it's not that important either way.

Yes, that's right. OE creationists generally have no problems with the Big Bang. Edit: I guess you would be an Old Universe creationist. Sorry. And you're right; it's not important, either way.

 

[coffee4u]

My point is there is no proof but the book. The math says that genesis is a myth. 10+10 will always equal 20. Nothing that book says changes facts. Christianity is matter of faith not facts. The new testament was written 50 years after the fact...I am not particularly worried about Christians, every year there are less more and more people are turning away from religion. You see education is hurting religion. We know the universe is billions of years old because of math. We know the earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, diseases are caused by germs not evil spirits, If it was evil spirits medication would not work. I think the of bible as a guidebook, part historical fact, part myth and parable. The Ark for example we have ships today that would make the ark look like a sailboat. Those boats could not hold 2 or 7 of every land animal on the planet. 4300 years ago when the flood happened and 4300 is a estimate give or take 50 years, there would have been more animals not less. Much of the bible does not hold up to historical fact check.

I am not the one who called the scriptures God breathed, God had his scribes write that. Disbelieve it if you want, but the Bible is integral to the Christian faith.

Might want to look a little deeper into that maths that you place so much faith in. There is more than one side. All these things are based on assumption and often those assumptions are based on yet more assumptions.

God gave the ancients quarantine, they are right there in the scriptures. The people who wrote that down didn't have to understand germ theory, God gave them rules about it anyway.

The Bible does not teach that the world is flat, that is a complete myth. If it actually did teach that I would believe it but it doesn't. Now if people back then believed it is another mater entirely. Just like God's rules against germs they didn't have to understand about a sphere shaped earth either.

 

[coffee4u]

Or not. I am a creationist and have zero problem with the so called big bang. Obviously the universe expanding isn't against any scripture.
I tend to believe old universe, young earth, but it's not that important either way.

It might not be against scripture, but expanding universe is itself just one of mankind's assumptions. What if it isn't expanding, but bound? Or what if neither model is correct, all it takes is one of mankind assumptions to be wrong to get vastly different results.
People put a huge amount of faith in man kinds knowledge.

The important point isn't the how or the age, it's sin. The Bible says sin brought in death. That before sin there was no death. Sin and death are an integral part of the gospel and should be important topics for any Christian.

 

[The Barbarian]

It might not be against scripture, but expanding universe is itself just one of mankind's assumptions.

Actually, it's a finding based on evidence.

People put a huge amount of faith in man kinds knowledge.

Experience does affect one's confidence. Science has been amazingly successful in explaining the physical universe. So people tend to have confidence in it. Doesn't mean it 's infallible. Since we're inferring the rules by which it works, by watching what it does, we're moving from "wrong" to "less and less wrong."

Still, it beats whatever is in second place by a huge margin.

 

[renniks]

It might not be against scripture, but expanding universe is itself just one of mankind's assumptions. What if it isn't expanding, but bound? Or what if neither model is correct, all it takes is one of mankind assumptions to be wrong to get vastly different results.
People put a huge amount of faith in man kinds knowledge.

The important point isn't the how or the age, it's sin. The Bible says sin brought in death. That before sin there was no death. Sin and death are an integral part of the gospel and should be important topics for any Christian.

I agree.
However scripture does seem to indicate that the universe is expanding.

Isaiah 42:5
Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Keeping in mind that much of the imagery in Isaiah is highly poetic, this still sounds like an expansion to me.

Of course science is often wrong. And I believe they are wrong about evolution. Our knowledge is actually very limited.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I believe they are wrong about evolution.

Evolution is happening to populations all around us. It's an observed phenomenon. And the four points of Darwin's theory remain as solidly documented as ever.

I think that what you doubt is common descent of life on Earth, which is not part of the theory, but a consequence of evolution.

Answers in Genesis concludes that common descent is a fact to a certain level only, so we've seen some movement on that issue.

 

[renniks]

think that what you doubt is common descent of life on Earth, which is not part of the theory, but a consequence of evolution.

Yes common descent is part of the theory. It's the main conclusion. Adaptation Is a fact we can observe. We don't observe one kind of animal transition into a totally different kind.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes common descent is part of the theory.

No. Here it is:
1. More are born than can live
2. Every individual is slightly different than its parents
3. Some of these differences affect the odds of surviving long enough to reproduce
4. These changes accumulate over time, and account for new species.

Common descent is not a part of the theory. For example, Wallace, who co-discovered natural selection, believed that humans were not descended from other animals.

Adaptation Is a fact we can observe.

Adaptation may or may not be evolution. Some adaptation is built into an organism, such as the ability to tan in sunlight. Other adaptations, such as the EPAS1 allele in Tibetans is evolution.

The difference is, biological evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Which we observe happening pretty much all the time. Individuals can adapt, but they cannot evolve. Only populations evolve.

 

[The Barbarian]

We don't observe one kind of animal transition into a totally different kind.

Speciation is an observed fact. Normally, this takes many years, but sometimes, it's faster. No human could possibly live long enough to observe a new family of organisms evolve, although the evidence shows that they do.

 

[renniks]

Speciation is an observed fact. Normally, this takes many years, but sometimes, it's faster. No human could possibly live long enough to observe a new family of organisms evolve, although the evidence shows that they do.

You aren't listening. One kind of animal doesn't change to another kind. I said nothing about species.
A feline is still a feline whether it's a lion or a tabby cat. A canine is still a canine. In fact creationists believe all canines came from one pair, so they believe in a rapid adaptation of kinds.

 

[renniks]

Common descent is not a part of the theory. For example, Wallace, who co-discovered natural selection, believed that humans were not descended from other animals.

Which has nothing to do with the entire theory. Natural selection is just one component.

 

[Paradox.79]

You aren't listening. One kind of animal doesn't change to another kind. I said nothing about species.
A feline is still a feline whether it's a lion or a tabby cat. A canine is still a canine. In fact creationists believe all canines came from one pair, so they believe in a rapid adaptation of kinds.

I could see adaptation. Neanderthal adapted till we had todays humans. Mammoths adapted till we had the elephants of today.

 

[The Barbarian]

Speciation is an observed fact. Normally, this takes many years, but sometimes, it's faster. No human could possibly live long enough to observe a new family of organisms evolve, although the evidence shows that they do.

You aren't listening.

You aren't comprehending. "Kind" is a religious belief with no testable definition. But even many creationists now admit new kinds of species, genera, and families come from older kinds.

One kind of animal doesn't change to another kind.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Most creationist organizations have redefined "evolution" to mean "evolution so great that no one could possibly live long enough to see it." And everyone understands why. However, the scientific definition remains.

A feline is still a feline whether it's a lion or a tabby cat.

No. Tabby cats are in the subfamily Felinea, and lions are in the subfamily Pantherinea. "Feline" refers to the smaller cats, not the larger ones.

Creationists imagine that all cats evolved from a pair of "cat kind." But that would require not only speciation, but the evolution of new genera and subfamilies.

 

[The Barbarian]

I could see adaptation. Neanderthal adapted till we had todays humans. Mammoths adapted till we had the elephants of today.

Actually, we are not descended from Neanderthals, although the humans from which we descended, did sometimes interbreed with Neanderthals. We represent two different subspecies of H. sapiens, with a common archaic human ancestor.

Mammoths did not give rise to either species of today's elephants.

 

[The Barbarian]

Common descent is not a part of the theory. For example, Wallace, who co-discovered natural selection, believed that humans were not descended from other animals.

Which has nothing to do with the entire theory. Natural selection is just one component.

Just pointing out that evolutionary theory is not about common descent, as Wallace's idea shows.

 

[Paradox.79]

Actually, we are not descended from Neanderthals, although the humans from which we descended, did sometimes interbreed with Neanderthals. We represent two different subspecies of H. sapiens, with a common archaic human ancestor.

Mammoths did not give rise to either species of today's elephants.

Well there are plenty of biologist who would disagree but whatever lol